Who's better, Coe or Lagat?

Ok, so he unquestionably the greatest 800m record setter of all time, and he is strong enough to win a race that wasn't even his event (the 1500m) twice, including in the year in which he wasn't in top form (84), and he can't win the 800m gold? If he had rectified his 800m choking in 84 by winning gold, then all would be settled, but he didn't. No one thought El G was the greatest of all time until Athens - and I agree. However, it's safe to say he fixed the problem by achieving the double no one has completed since Nurmi! I realize this isn't the argument, but I am just not a big Coe fan compared to many other mid-d guys.

Well, gosh Wang, the comparison being made is between Coe and Lagat anyway, so what does not being an 800-meter gold medalist have to do with that?

Let me change the question a little for everyone picking Coe (which is everyone).

What would Lagat have to have done to be considered in your mind as the second greatest 1500m runner ever?

Obviously if he beat El G every time he would be the greatest.

If he beat El G half of the time, neither would be the greatest.

"Obviously if he beat El G every time he would be the greatest.

If he beat El G half of the time, neither would be the greatest."

That depends on who beat who in the olympics and world championships when it counted. Coe has a losing record versus Cram in the 1500/Mile, but he beat him in 84 in LA when it counted. Kip Keino lost to Jim Ryun multiple times from 1966-67, but he beat him when it counted in the olympics. For Lagat to be considered the greatest ever, he would need the olympic and world championship gold medals, set a few world records, and earn a #1 ranking in the world several years. He hasn't done any of the three. There are six or seven guys who have done ALL three of the above since world war II, and a few others who have done 2 out of 3.

toro, to even use Lagats name on the same page as Coe's digusts me. Coe did use a lot of scientific methods but that was just posh British talk for lifting weights and drinking tea. Coe however, is one of the best athlete's to grace a track and Lagat will never be.

[

That depends on who beat who in the olympics and world championships when it counted. Coe has a losing record versus Cram in the 1500/Mile, but he beat him in 84 in LA when it counted. Kip Keino lost to Jim Ryun multiple times from 1966-67, but he beat him when it counted in the olympics. For Lagat to be considered the greatest ever, he would need the olympic and world championship gold medals, set a few world records, and earn a #1 ranking in the world several years. He hasn't done any of the three. There are six or seven guys who have done ALL three of the above since world war II, and a few others who have done 2 out of 3.[/quote]

This is like saying that Paul Tergat isn't one of the best ever. Wake up everybody. Just because you don't have Olympic or World gold, doesn't mean you're not one of the best ever. Anyone on here think Tergat isn't one of the best ever. He has exactly zero gold medals. Lagat has run the second fastest 1500 EVER. Coe would be 30 meters behind. And whose beat him at the Olympics. The unquestionably best mid-distance runner ever. And a guy who is four seconds faster than Coe in the mile. Olympic gold doesn't make you the best ever, or in the top 5 or whatever. IT JUST MEANS YOU WERE THE BEST OF YOUR TIME!

The Insider wrote:

Olympic gold doesn't make you the best ever, or in the top 5 or whatever. IT JUST MEANS YOU WERE THE BEST OF YOUR TIME!

But anybody can agree that Coe is more decorated and accomplished than Lagat is. Having won major championship titles is the number one criterion of "ranking" in this sport, and Coe beat his contemporaries in the 1,500 when it counted most ... twice. You can only beat the guys who show up, so it's not fair to play the "what if" game and wonder how Coe would fare against El G or Lagat.

Having said that, I think Coe would win some kinds of races against the other all-time greats and those guys would win different kinds of races vs. Coe if they were all time-warped to the same era and raced in their prime.

so what if we phrased the question like so:

If you are an Olympic favorite in the 1500m, who would you be more worried about in the finals: Coe (in his prime) or Lagat?

A tough question to which I don't know the answer. I do, however, think you guys are generally writing off Lagat far too quickly.

"There a quite a few division three track runners who have a faster 1500m pr than Paavo Nurmi. Does that make them better??"

Yes

Phaedrus wrote:

If you are an Olympic favorite in the 1500m, who would you be more worried about in the finals: Coe (in his prime) or Lagat?

Yeah, that's a close call. If El G runs the same way he did in Athens, I think the medals would have still gone the way they did, with Coe probably being shut out. But nobody can know that for sure, since Coe never had to run 1:47 or faster for the last 800 to medal.

But if things changed oh-so subtly and a person or two was boxed even for a couple of seconds, Coe might have smelled blood in the water and his superior acceleration (which I don't believe any of this year's medalists possess) might have won him a medal or won the race outright.

lagat's poltically protected wrote:

Coe was 32 when he ran 3:29 - clearly past his best years. He didn't have EPO like Lagat either.

how the hell do u know that Coe didnt have EPO or some other drug

until u can prove something shut the f*** up about the drugs

Coe is better than Lagat. However, I don't see how Ovett is "way better" than Lagat. Also, Coe choked twice in the 800m at the Olympics. That has to count for something. I'm not saying Coe isn't better, because he is. And I am amazed at the people who don't think times matter at all. Does anyone seriously think Viren is better than Geb just beacuse he has two 5000m golds that Geb doesn't? Geb would LAP HIM. You really can't compare the two. You can compare 3:29 vs. 3:26, but not 27:30 and 26:22. As for Coe being "clearly well past his prime" - he ran his f***ing PR in that year, how was he well past his prime? If his prime was when he was 27 why didn't he run faster? It's not like Coe was injured from age 24-32 or something. Then you would have a point, but you don't.